Frequently asked questions

The Bill has been referred to the Economics and Governance Committee who conducted an inquiry into the Bill. The submissions made, recordings and transcripts for the public hearings can be located on the Committee’s website.

On 21 June 2019, the Committee released its report which is now being considered by the State Government before the Bill is debated by Parliament. Should the Bill be passed, these reforms will apply to local governments and candidates for the 2020 local government elections. More information will be made available in due course by the Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs here.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Election expenditure records will need to be kept from 1 May 2019 by all candidates and groups of candidates for the 2020 local government elections if the Local Government Electoral (Implementing Stage 2 of Belcarra) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 is passed.

FAQs have been answered to provide more details on the proposed Local Government rolling reforms.

Local government reform

Why is it proposed to introduce compulsory preferential voting?

It is proposed to introduce compulsory preferential voting for Mayors and single Councillor divisions. Full preferential proportional representation will be introduced for undivided Councillor elections.

The intention is to align the voting methods for local government with State and Federal elections. This would assist in avoiding voter confusion, by using the same voting methodology across all levels of government.
This would ensure that the candidate preferred by more voters will be elected, ensuring that every vote counts.

What would my ballot paper look like at the next local government election?

All ballot papers at the next election would look the same. What would change is that voters must number every box.

Do these changes affect how my vote is counted?

There are no changes to how votes would be counted for Mayoral candidates and where only one Councillor is to be elected. Where more than one Councillor is to be elected, the count would change from a first past the post count to a proportional count. Proportional voting avoids situations where the voting preferences of the majority of electors are ignored.

Why are ratepayers now paying for candidates to run a campaign?

The introduction of public campaign funding for candidates would align the State and local government electoral processes. Candidates, groups of candidates and political parties that receive more than 4% of first preference votes will be entitled to $1.57 per first preference vote, up to the amount of electoral expenditure.

This may encourage more people to run as candidates by subsidising the cost of campaigning. It is hoped that this will increase diversity amongst Councillors, ensuring better overall representation of their communities. The cost would be borne by each local government. Whether local governments seek to pass that cost on to ratepayers will be a matter for each local government to determine.

Why is it proposed to place greater scrutiny on the allocation and use of councillor discretionary funds?

A discretionary fund is a pool of money that each Mayor and councillor have at their disposal, to distribute to individuals or community organisations as they see fit.

The use of ratepayer funds for councillor discretionary funds varies across local governments. Some do not provide councillors with any discretionary funds, whereas some provide councillors with a very large discretionary fund. Not all local governments clearly publish the allocation and/or expenditure of councillor discretionary funds meaning the community does not have strong visibility over how their ratepayer funds are being used. It is currently also possible for councillors to use their discretionary funds heavily in the lead-up to an election, thus raising their public profile, providing a clear advantage over other candidates.

To improve transparency and accountability, it is proposed to cap the allocation of councillor discretionary funds to 0.25% of general rates. Councillors will also be prohibited from rolling funds over each financial year and from expending discretionary funds from 1 January in election years. Discretionary funds expenditure must be published within 7 days of being incurred.

Why has it taken more than 12 months after the introduction of the Local Government Councillor Complaints and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 to act on the Brisbane City Council complaints framework?

The Government committed that it would review the Councillor complaints framework for Brisbane City Council within 6 months from the commencement of the new complaints’ framework for other local governments (3 December 2018). The Government has exceeded that promise, with the review being completed by the end of 2018.

The Government is committed to consistency between all local governments where it makes sense. This is a clear situation where there should be consistency. Having the Office of the Independent Assessor investigate complaints about Brisbane City Councillors will ensure the process is independent.

The Office of the Independent Assessor already seems to have high number of complaints. How could it possibly cope with even more complaints?

The Government is aware of the workload currently being experienced by the Office of the Independent Assessor and is closely monitoring that workload to ensure that the new complaints framework is streamlined and efficient.

Why has Brisbane City Council had RTI exemptions?

The Right to Information Act currently provides that Brisbane City Council Establishment and Coordination Committee’s (E&C) information is exempt information for a period of 10 years. When the RTI Act was first enacted in 2009, it did not include Section 4A. Sections 4A and 4B were inserted into the RTI Act by the City of Brisbane Act 2010 in June 2010.

With the publication of the CCC’s Operation Belcarra and Operation Windage reports, it has become clear that the local government legislation does not go far enough in promoting and mandating transparency. For consistency, Increased transparency should apply to all local governments, including Brisbane City Council.

For this reason, it is also proposed to mandate that all Council committees must keep minutes. For Brisbane City Council, this will mean that its Establishment and Coordination Committee must now keep minutes.

Why are further changes proposed to the conflict of interest provisions in the legislation?

The Government has engaged with local governments over the past 12 months listening to feedback about the operation of the current provisions with respect to conflicts of interest. We have heard these concerns and the overwhelming support for further amendments to clarify particular matters. As a result of this feedback, amendments to the conflict of interest provisions are proposed. It is anticipated that these amendments will provide Councillors with greater clarity over how conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with.

Why is it in the public interest to limit how much candidates spend on their campaigns?

The introduction of expenditure caps aims to improve transparency, reduce integrity risks associated with reliance on significant donations and create diversity by levelling the playing field between candidates. Candidature should not be limited to only those who are wealthy or who can procure large political donations.

Why is it proposed to require Council Committees to keep and publish minutes?

Requiring all Council committees to keep minutes would enhance the transparency of council decisions and how conflicts of interest are handled during committee meetings.

Why do Councillors’ need more access to information?

Councillors need relevant information to inform their decisions and ensure they are in the public interest. The proposed changes would improve Councillors’ access to Council information by requiring Councillors obtain information requested from Council officers within five days of the request and permitting Brisbane City Councillors to obtain information that does not specifically relate to their wards.

What will Councillors have to do differently to maintain their registers of interests?

The requirements for councillors to maintain registers of interest would be clarified to improve the quality and timeliness of disclosures of interest by Councillors. Councillors would be required to submit a new register within 30 days of their election, with failure to do so resulting in the Councillor losing office. Councillors would also be required to provide annual updates to their registers of interest.

The contents of registers of interest would be made to align as much as practicable with those for State Members of Parliament.

The changes would help Councillors to keep their registers accurate and up to date and increase transparency and integrity in handling Councillors’ conflicts of interest.

Why should the powers of Mayors be reduced?

Removing the current responsibility of the Mayor to prepare and present a budget for consideration by Council would ensure that the budget is developed by all Councillors and represents the interest of the entire Local Government area.

The Mayor’s power to direct senior executive staff of the Council as well as the Chief Executive Officer would be removed to better reflect the operational structure and reporting lines of Councils and reduce the risks of corruption.

In addition, the requirement for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor (or Committee Chairperson) and Chief Executive Officer to be responsible for the appointment of senior executive staff will be removed so that the Chief Executive Officer is responsible to provide clarity over reporting lines.

The proposed changes to the responsibilities of Mayors would not apply to Lord Mayor of Brisbane City Council.

Who will prepare the 2019–20 council budgets?

Should Parliament pass the amendments, it is expected the changes would be made in mid-2019.

Councils must adopt their budgets by 1 August 2019, so it is possible a Council will need to prepare a budget at short notice in place of a budget prepared by the Mayor. If more time is needed, a Council may apply for an extension of time to adopt their budget.

Why should candidates be able to nominate for both Mayoral and Councillor elections?

In Councils that do not have divisions, allowing a candidate to nominate for election as Mayor and Councillor would ensure that if the candidate was not successful in the Mayoral election they would still be able to be elected as a Councillor and participate in the Council. This would avoid a candidate who would be a high-quality candidate for Councillor (including an existing Councillor) from being excluded from the Councillor elections due to their running for Mayor.

The proposed change would remove the need for candidates to choose whether they run for Mayor or Councillor and remove a disincentive for successful Councillors to seek election as Mayor.

Why should candidates publish details of political affiliations?

Candidates for Mayor or Councillor do not currently have to disclose any of their interests until they are elected. The Government considers it important that voters know if a candidate has any political affiliations or potential conflicts of interest that would impact on their responsibilities if elected, for example, if a candidate has a contract with Council or has a development application under consideration by Council.

Requiring all candidates to maintain registers of interest would also bring greater equity between candidates from outside Council and those who already hold office and are required to maintain public registers of interest.

Why should training be mandatory for all candidates for Local Government elections?

Currently, training for potential candidates for Local Government elections has been provided on a voluntary basis. However, the Government considers that all candidates, including current office holders, should be fully informed of their obligations as candidates and Councillors or Mayors before they nominate.

The Government proposes that successful completion of approved training would be a requirement for nominating as a candidate for Local Government elections. The training would help ensure the transparency and integrity of elections and Councils by advising potential candidates of their commitments should they nominate and if they are successful in the election.

Why are the proposed arrangements for filling Councillor vacancies different for divided and un-divided Councils?

The Government proposes to reduce the need for by-elections to fill Councillor vacancies to minimise Councils’ costs associated with by-elections and reduce the time with vacancies on Council. Instead of by-elections, Councillor vacancies at undivided Councils or divided Councils with multi-Councillor divisions would be filled by appointing the runner-up at the previous election. However, for Councils with single Councillors division, a by-election will still be required to avoid appointing a runner-up who may not have received the second highest number of votes after preferences have been redistributed.

Why are the arrangements for postal voting proposed to be changed?

The proposed timeframes for applications for postal votes align with the State election processes for postal voting. Extending the deadline for applications for a postal vote to 10 business days before polling day would also ensure sufficient time is available for the voter to be sent their ballot paper before the election, given current Australia Post-delivery arrangements.

The proposed arrangements also allow postal ballots to be counted prior to the election day to enable quicker determination of the election result.

Local Government reforms—Electoral reforms webinar questions

Will the Department be circulating the draft Bill to Councils?

The Bill is currently being prepared and informed by feedback from key stakeholders. Once prepared, the Bill will be tabled in Parliament and then referred to a Parliamentary Committee. It is through this process that the Bill is made public for community consideration and comment.

What consultation has the Department undertaken on the proposed Local Government reforms?

The Department has been engaging with stakeholders including community groups, Councils, Councillors, Regional Organisations of Councils and Council Chief Executive Officers across the State for about a year. The Local Government Association of Queensland has also been consulted. The release of the Information Paper, Local Government Reforms – Key amendments currently under consideration, and the Webinar Series continues that consultation.

Will the Department be doing more work to ensure Councillors are aware of the proposed reforms?

The Department acknowledges there is a large amount of change proposed and will be working to ensure all Councillors and Council staff are informed of the reforms. The webinar series is available for On Demand viewing. There is a dedicated telephone hotline, 07 3452 6747, available between the hours of 8:30am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday and a dedicated email address This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for any queries about the reforms. The Department will also continue to have conversations with stakeholders including the Local Government Association of Queensland.

If compulsory preferential voting is introduced, will voters in an undivided Council area be required to mark every box on the ballot paper? For example, if there are 40 candidates, will voters need to number one through to 40?

Yes. If compulsory preferential voting is introduced it is the intention that voters mark every box on the ballot paper. However, the Department accepts that in some of the large regional Councils there may be very large pools of candidates that nominate to be Councillors and that it might be difficult for electors to know enough about all those candidates to be able to make an informed voting decision. That is, whom to assign their preferences to when casting their ballot. The Department will be providing feedback to the Government about this issue, so the Government may full consider this issue when making the final decision about whether to introduce compulsory preferential voting in undivided Councils.

If a voter does not mark every box on the ballot paper but their intention is clear, will their vote be counted?

This is a matter for the Electoral Commission of Queensland, but the Department understands the Commission makes every effort to have votes count where possible.

Will there be, ‘above the line’ voting at Local Government elections?

No, this is not part of the proposed reforms.

Who will be conducting the mandatory candidate training and what will that training look like?

The mandatory candidate training will be a training course developed and endorsed by the Department. The training will help candidates understand their obligations as candidates and outline the responsibilities of a Councillor. It is expected that the training will be available through a range of delivery methods to ensure all intending candidates across Queensland are able to access the training. For example, face to face training and online training.

The availability of the mandatory training online will enable candidates to access the training whenever they decide to run, even if that decision is not made until the last day for nomination.

Will the cost of mandatory candidate training be borne by Councils?

It is expected that the training will be delivered free of charge.

Do sitting Councillors have to undertake mandatory candidate training?

Yes. This will ensure that even experienced Councillors will be informed about the new requirements for candidates and Councillors.

Mandatory candidate training will be for both candidates and sitting Councillors who decide to stand again for election. This will make sure all candidates are aware of what it means to be a Councillor and the obligations that exist for both candidates and Councillors. This will allow all intending candidates to make an informed choice before formally nominating for the election.

Will mandatory training be required prior to nomination?

Yes. As the training will deal with issues that will affect how a candidate runs their campaign, it is intended that the training will be available before the formal nomination period commences. It is currently intended that the training will be available from approximately six months prior to the election.

Many people have already indicated their intention to run as candidates, won’t mandatory candidate training be too late for these people?

The Department would encourage anyone who is already campaigning or planning their campaign to familiarise themselves with the proposed reforms and to stay informed as the reforms develop. Until the legislation is passed, the Department will not know the final form of the reforms and therefore cannot implement any training until after that time.

Will mandatory candidate training have a pass/fail element?

No. The intention is for intending candidates to gain an understanding of their obligations as a candidate and a Councillor.

Will mandatory candidate training include information on all issues a person would face in the role of Councillor?

No. The role of a Councillor touches on a very broad range of topics. It is intended that mandatory candidate training will give an overview of the role of Councillor including such matters as the Local Government principles, the strategic role of a Councillor and the obligations of a Councillor. If elected, there are further training opportunities available to a Councillor for more detailed information about the specifics of the role such as meeting procedures, land use planning and development and financial sustainability.

Are Mayoral elections staying as optional preferential voting or are these changing to compulsory preferential voting?

The proposal being considered is for Mayoral elections to be changed to compulsory preferential voting.

Will the Mayoral vote count remain as first past the post?

The current voting system for Mayoral elections is optional preferential voting and there is no intention to change the system to first past the post. It is proposed that voting for Mayors be changed to compulsory preferential voting. This means that Mayoral votes will continue to be counted by using preferences to achieve a majority.

Does the Department believe that the proposed changes will give rise to party politics in the Local Government sector?

No. The Department does not believe there is any evidence to show that a change in the voting methodology will give rise to party politics in Local Government. Compulsory preferential voting has been in place in Queensland in the past and is in place in other Australian States. It is up to candidates to decide whether they want to be affiliated with a political party and then ultimately up to electors to decide whether they want to vote for a person associated with a political party.

Does the Department believe that the proposed changes to the voting system will give rise to an increase in informal votes?

In 2017, when the State Government electoral system was changed from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential there was a minor increase in the level of informal voting being about 1 to 2% increase. As such, it is not expected that the proposed changes would lead to a large increase in informal votes.

What role will the Government play in determining which Councils are able to use full postal voting?

As this issue is about how the election might be run, it is proposed that Councils would make application for full postal voting to the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ), the agency responsible for the conduct of Local Government elections. ECQ would consider the views and information provided by the Council and then make a recommendation to the Minister about whether it is in the best interests of democracy for that Council election to be run by full postal ballot.

Is there an obligation on Councils to consult with their community before applying for a full postal ballot?

There is no specific legislative obligation that requires community consultation as part of the full postal voting application process. However, one of the local government principles set out in the Local Government Act 2009 is meaningful community engagement. Therefore, Councils should be seeking community input about whether full postal voting is the most appropriate way to conduct the election.

Will candidates have to fill out a Register of Interest? If yes, what will this Register look like?

Yes. Candidates will need to complete a Register of Interest. A candidate’s Register of Interest will disclose:

membership in political parties including membership in the last 12 months

if a candidate or close associate is involved in contractual arrangements with the Council

if the candidate or close associate has any development applications before the Council.

This will allow electors to better understand the candidates.

For a candidate’s Register of Interest, is there a time limit for what political party membership must be included? For example, it is just if you are a member of a political party at the time of nomination?

Yes. It is proposed that there will be a time period being the previous 12 months.

If a candidate is a preferred supplier for a Council but has not actually carried out any work for that Council, does the candidate have to include this information on their Register of Interest?

Yes. Generally, a preferred supplier arrangement means that the Council and supplier have agreed to terms and have entered into a contractual arrangement where the supplier is obligated to provide goods and/or services to the Council at any point the Council places an order.

When does a candidate have to complete their Register of Interest?

At the time when they complete their formal nomination.

When do groups have to be registered?

A group can be registered right up until the close of nominations. This will allow sufficient time for the ballot papers to be appropriately prepared including details of which candidates are part of a group.

If a candidate has the same policy position as another candidate, are these candidates a group?

No. Just because candidates have the same views on an issue does not mean they are a group. The candidates would need to undertake group like behaviour, such as developing and committing to a shared policy, to be considered a group.

What are group like behaviours?

The Department is not able to give a full and complete list of what would be considered group like behaviour as there are so many iterations and variables. However, behaviour like sharing electioneering costs, using one website or social media account for more than one candidate and placing more than one candidate’s name or photo on electioneering material would be considered group like behaviour.

Will candidates still be able to have how-to-vote cards?

At this point, there is no intention to ban how-to-vote cards.

Will Councils be able to make decisions about development applications during the Caretaker Period before the election?

Yes. The Planning Act 2016 has statutory timeframes for when decisions need to be made about development applications. The Caretaker Period restrictions are designed to stop the Council making major decisions which would bind an incoming Council. For example, making changes to the planning rules or developing a new local area plan.

Local Government reforms—Electoral Finance reforms webinar questions

Will a candidate be able to use a credit card for electoral expenditure?

No, the Crime and Corruption Commission made it clear in its Belcarra Report that credit card usage should be prohibited. The Department acknowledges that when making online purchases, a card may be needed but it is suggested that candidates arrange with their financial institution a debit card which is linked to the candidate’s dedicated campaign bank account.

If I am a candidate and am part of a political party, is it my obligation as a candidate to make the required disclosures and declarations to the Electoral Commission of Queensland or is it the obligation of the political party who has endorsed me?

It is proposed that for both political parties and groups fielding candidates in a Local Government election that they nominate an agent who would be responsible for the election requirements including managing the dedicated campaign account, disclosing electoral donation, loans and gifts and after the conclusion of the election submitting a financial return about donations and expenditure and a bank statement for the dedicated campaign account to the Electoral Commission of Queensland. Whereas an individual candidate will need to personally manage these requirements.

Will it be an integrity offence to lodge an electoral return that is inaccurate, false, misleading or deceptive?

If a candidate does not have all the required information to lodge a complete electoral return with the Electoral Commission of Queensland, the candidate has the option of contacting the Commission to ask for further time to submit all the required information. However, if a candidate fails to lodge an electoral return or provides the Commission with misleading information, there will be the possibility of the candidate being prosecuted for an offence which would be classified as an integrity offence. An integrity offence is a disqualifying offence and a person is automatically suspended as a Councillor when charged with a disqualifying offence. A Councillor convicted of an integrity offence automatically stops being a Councillor and is disqualified from being a Councillor for 4 years.

Why is it proposed that in the last 7 days of the election campaign, candidates must disclose their expenditure within 24 hours of that expenditure?

It is acknowledged these last 7 days of the election campaign is a busy period for candidates. It is also acknowledged that this is a time when candidates are making a last-minute push to influence the votes of undecided voters. Therefore, it is just as important for the public to be informed of any expenditure in this final period as it is for expenditure that occurs in the months leading up to an election. This will allow voters to make an informed choice on election day.

Will the Electoral Commission of Queensland be responsible for publishing the information about gifts received by candidates?

Yes, the Electoral Commission of Queensland will continue to be responsible for the publishing of real time financial disclosures by candidates.

Will there be an App developed to facilitate the real time disclosure requirements for candidates?

The Electoral Commission of Queensland is the body to whom disclosures must be made and therefore, the management of disclosures, including options for how these are made, is an issue for the Commission.

The proposed reforms include the real time disclosure of electoral donations and expenditure ($500 minimum) by candidates, groups of candidates and third parties. Will the $500 threshold apply to cumulative donations and expenditure as well as one-off receipts and payments of that amount?

Yes, the $500 threshold will include cumulative donations and expenditure.

Local Government reforms—Conflicts of Interests and Registers of Interest reform webinar questions

Shouldn’t a Councillor be able to decide about their own conflict of interest? That is, a Councillor should decide whether they should stay in the meeting or not without the other Councillors having to being involved in that decision?

The Crime and Corruption Commission made it very clear in the Belcarra Report that it felt the other Councillors are best placed to determine whether or not a Councillor is able to resolve a matter in the public interest. The declarable conflict of interest process reflects this view. However, if a Councillor makes a declarable conflict of interest, that Councillor has the option of deciding themselves to leave the room if they are personally of the view that they cannot resolve the conflict in the public interest.

What does the Department mean by ‘Abolishing the concept of Ordinary Business’?

Currently under the Local Government Act 2009, if an issue falls within the definition of ordinary business, the prescribed conflict of interest process does not need to be followed by Councillors. Under the current definition, ordinary business is quite broad and includes things like the remuneration of Councillors, the making or levying of rates and charges, a planning scheme or amendment of a planning scheme, the adoption of the Council’s budget etc. However, this means that in some cases, conflicts of interest are not being declared and Councillors are voting on issues which have the potential for major personal impacts. For example, if a proposed planning scheme amendment will only impact one property which is owned by a Councillor, the current ordinary business exemption means the Councillor can vote on the amendment without the need to declare a conflict of interest.

As such, consideration is being given to reducing the circumstances in which a Councillor does not need to declare a conflict of interest.

What are the proposed reforms in relation to the issue of a majority of Councillors having conflicts of interest?

There have been examples where in a Council meeting, a majority of Councillors are declaring conflicts of interest (sometime, in the case of groups of Councillors, the conflicts of interest will be the exact same conflict of interest for every Councillor in the group). This is leading to situations where the Councillors are regularly unable to decide a matter before the Council meeting.

Under the proposed changes, there will be a number of options to address these situations. These will include the current options of delegation as per section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009 and seeking the Minister’s approval for a Councillor to participate in the meeting while a matter is discussed and voted on (if the matter cannot be delegated) and a new option where, if due to the conflict of interest process a quorum cannot be formed, the non-conflicted Councillors are able to decide whether one or more of the conflicted Councillors are able to return to the meeting to deal with the matter.

This new option would involve the non-conflicted Councillors carefully considering the nature of the prescribed conflicts of interest and/or declared conflicts of interest and the ability of those conflicted Councillors to exercise decision-making in the public interest.

There have been examples of Councils losing their meeting quorum due to conflicts of interest and making the decision to delegate the matter to the Chief Executive Officer. Why should an unelected official be making decisions on behalf of residents?

The Department acknowledges these situations are occurring and can place a Chief Executive Officer in a position where they are making significant decisions. Ultimately, the Local Government Act 2009 provides different mechanisms for the Council to use when facing the lack of a quorum due to Councillor conflicts of interest. One mechanism is delegation. Section 257 of the Act provides a number of options for delegating a matter, one of which is delegation to the Chief Executive Officer. It is for the Council to decide which of these options is appropriate in all the circumstances.

It should be noted that the new proposal is for a minority of non-conflicted Councillors to allow conflicted Councillors to return to the meeting to decide a matter.

If all Councillors except for one had either a prescribed conflict of interest or a declarable conflict of interest, could the remaining one non-conflicted Councillor decide whether the other Councillors could return and participate in the Council decision?

Yes. It would be open for the one non-conflicted Councillor to do this. Remembering that the non-conflicted Councillor would need to carefully consider the nature of the prescribed conflicts of interest and/or declared conflicts of interest and the ability of those conflicted Councillors to exercise decision-making in the public interest.

The new model of ‘Prescribed Conflict of Interest’ does not include the concept of a financial benefit or loss going to a Councillor or their close associate. Is there a reason for this concept being discarded?

The Department has found that the concept of a financial benefit or loss flowing from a Council decision can be difficult to determine. And in many cases, a financial gain or loss may not even be a relevant consideration. Instead under the proposed reforms, the legislation will have a prescriptive list of situations which will be a prescribed conflict of interest. This takes away any ambiguity.

The proposed reforms state that a prescribed conflict of interest will include a contract between the Council and the Councillor or close associate or entity which the Councillor or close associate has a financial interest in. Is it just contracts or does a prescribed conflict of interest include other procurement activities as well?

The Department is carefully considering this issue. It may be that this concept of a contract with the Council is broadened to include other arrangements relating to procurement such as clearly specifying that standing offer arrangements and panel arrangements are captured within the definition of prescribed conflicts of interest.

Will there be a process that allows a Councillor with a conflict of interest to provide pertinent information for a Council decision?

One of the proposed reforms is for a Councillor with a declarable conflict of interest to be able to provide information about a matter which is under consideration. It is important to remember that under section 175I of the Local Government Act 2009 it is an offence for a Councillor with a conflict of interest in a matter to influence or attempt to influence another Councillor to vote on the matter in a particular way. The proposed reforms will allow a Councillor with a declarable conflict of interest to give factual information about a matter to the Chief Executive Officer.

Will non-cash gifts or donations to Councillors, such as tickets to functions or a trip away, be considered in the same way as a cash gift or donation? And will this amount to a prescribed conflict of interest or declarable conflict of interest?

Non-cash gifts or donations need to be treated similarly to cash gifts or donations as these may give rise to a declarable conflict of interest or a prescribed conflict of interest. The Councillor who receives a non-cash gift or donation will need to determine the monetary value of the gift or donation. If it is worth more than $2,000 it will be a prescribed conflict of interest. If it is worth $2,000 or less it may be a declarable conflict of interest. The Department is considering this matter further.

Therefore, it is very important that Councillors understand the nature and value of any gift or donation they receive.

Will a gift or donation over the $2,000 be a prescribed conflict of interest where it was received many years/elections in the past?

The Department is still considering this issue of whether gifts endure.

Is the $2,000 threshold for prescribed conflicts of interest cumulative?

Yes, this is cumulative. The Crime and Corruption Commission clearly stated that the issue of influence can be small and gradual. Therefore, it is important for Councillors to pay attention to multiple small donations.

How would the $2,000 threshold for prescribed conflicts of interest work in relation to gifts or donations made to a group?

If a group receives a donation or gift, each member of the group is taken to receive a proportionate share of that gift or donation. For example, if a group of 10 receives a gift or donation of $40,000, each member of that group is deemed to have received $4,000. In this example, this is an amount over the threshold and so would give rise to a prescribed conflict of interest.

Under the proposed reforms, what changes are being made to Councillor discretionary funds?

It is important to note that the proposed reforms will not change the nature of discretionary funds and to what purposes these funds are applied. The changes proposed are about ensuring integrity and transparency and ensuring these funds are not used by Councillors as a campaigning tool in the lead up to a Local Government election. The changes proposed are:

The amount of money that may be allocated as Councillor discretionary funds will be capped at 0.25% of general rates (excluding discretionary funds allocated for capital works of the local government)

Unspent Councillor discretionary funds cannot be rolled over to the next financial year (funds must be allocated in that financial year)

Councillor discretionary fund expenditure will need to be published within 7 days

Councillor discretionary funds cannot be expended from 1 January in election years until the conclusion of the election (excluding discretionary funds allocated for capital works of the local government).

Why is the State Government limiting the amount of money available under Councillor discretionary funds when this money is used for community purposes?

Councillor discretionary funds are allocated at the sole discretion of a Councillor. The Department acknowledges that Councillors use discretionary funds to meet the needs of their community. However, decisions about the expenditure of large amounts of money should be done in an accountable and transparent way to ensure that those funds are being applied appropriately and in the public interest of the entire Council area. Therefore, it is appropriate that the normal Council expenditure processes apply when large amounts of money are being expended.

Did the Department consider removing the concept of Councillor discretionary funds and instead having all expenditure of ratepayers’ money being allocated for expenditure through the Council budget?

The Department did consider this option. There are a number of Councils who do not have Councillor discretionary funds and use the budget process instead. However, the proposals seek to provide some improved governance of Councillor discretionary funds, not to do away with them altogether.

Will the changes to Councillor discretionary funds be retrospective?

It is not proposed to make any retrospective changes to Councillor discretionary funds.

Should Councils be factoring in the new cap for Councillor discretionary funds when preparing their 2019–2020 budgets?

It is not easy to provide a yes or no answer to this question. The Department is aware that Councils are in budget development phase now. The Department will be cognisant of this issue when making recommendations about the timing for commencement of these reforms. Ultimately, this will be an issue for Parliament to consider.

What happens in the case of a Councillor who uses their discretionary funds to fund an Australia Day event and that event will now fall within the proposed blackout period before a Local Government election?

The proposed reforms are intended to be about when discretionary funds are allocated. So, if a Councillor wishes to allocate discretionary funds to an event held which will be held from 1 January 2020 onwards, before the conclusion of the Local Government election, the Councillor will need to ensure the allocation of those funds occurs before 1 January 2020.

For larger Councils, how will the proposed reforms deal with the issue that Councillor discretionary funds are used to provide funding to a very large number of organisations and people in the community?

The Department was very aware of the diversity of Councils across Queensland when considering the issue of Councillor discretionary funds. This is why it is proposed that a percentage of general rates be used to determine the discretionary funds cap. This means that larger Councils with larger rates revenue will have a larger pool of discretionary funds to draw on than smaller Councils.

In cases where the amount of money available for distribution via Councillor discretionary funds will be reduced due to the cap, what can be done for those community organisations that rely on discretionary funds?

These reforms will not impact the Council’s overall revenue. Councils have the option of deciding to provide funding to community organisations through their usual general budget process. This would mean the Council is determining the level of funding provided and so this type of funding would not fall within the definition of Councillor discretionary funds.

In relation to the proposed changes to Mayoral powers, will there be any transparency provisions introduced around how a Mayor can direct the Chief Executive Officer?

Under the proposed reforms, Mayors can only direct Chief Executive Officers in terms of matters that are lawful and in accordance with Council decisions and policies.

Further, consideration is being given to a requirement that Mayoral directions be recorded and publicly available for inspection.

What happens if other Councillors disagree with a Mayoral direction to the Chief Executive Officer?

If the Mayor is seeking to issue a direction to the Chief Executive Officer and the other Councillors disagree with that, the issue could be brought before Council (through the relevant meeting procedures). This would allow full Council to discuss and vote on the matter. Such Council decision may then limit the ability of the Mayor to issue a direction if such direction will not be in consistent with that Council decision.

Will the proposed reforms place a limit on the Mayor and Councillors participating in the recruitment of senior Council staff?

The current legislation is prescriptive about who sits on a recruitment panel for senior executive employees (see section 196 of the Local Government Act 2009). The proposed reforms will remove this prescription to reflect that it is the Chief Executive Officer who is ultimately responsible for the recruitment of Council staff. However, the proposed reforms will not prohibit a Councillor from sitting on a selection panel. This would mean if a Councillor wished to participate in a recruitment panel, that would be a matter for the Chief Executive Officer to determine.

Is a Mayor able to use their direction power to direct a Chief Executive Officer to appoint a particular candidate to a Council role?

The proposed reforms are intended to reflect that it is the Chief Executive Officer who has ultimate responsibility for the recruitment of Council staff.

The Department’s Information Paper on the proposed reforms refers to some changes being made by Regulation. Can you provide some detail?

Further information regarding regulatory reforms has now been made available on the Department’s local government reform page on its website.

Councillors are already obliged to update their registers of interests when any change occurs, so why is it proposed that Councillors will also need to provide an annual update to their registers of interests?

This will align the register of interests process with the requirements placed on State Government Members of Parliament. Also, the Department regularly comes across registers of interests which remain static over a long period. This will be an annual reminder to Councillors to review their register.

Why is it proposed that even existing Councillors who are re-elected will need to re-submit a register of interest within 30 days of re-election?

This will align the register of interests process with the requirements placed on State Government Members of Parliament.

What happens if a Councillor is unable to lodge a register of interest within the 30 day timeframe post the election through no fault of their own?

The proposed changes will provide for this scenario. The requirement will be to submit a new register of interests within 30 days after the election or within a longer period provided by the Minister. A Councillor would need to write to the Minister and request a longer timeframe. Such request would need to provide details about why the 30 day timeframe cannot be met (for example, illness).